list_r2_share_recipients

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List recipients' and does not disclose read-only semantics, pagination, permission requirements, invalid-ID behavior, or response shape. The agent must infer safety and side effects from the verb.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, with two required parameters and no nested objects or output schema, so the one-line description is minimally viable. However, it provides no return-format or pagination context, which would make the agent more confident about the response it will receive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description names the verb 'List' and a specific resource ('recipients of an R2 share'), which is distinct from the sibling get_r2_share (fetching a share) and list_r2_share_resources (listing resources). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied by the verb and resource: call this when you need the recipient list for a given R2 share. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_r2_share or list_r2_share_resources, but the one-line purpose signals the intended scenario adequately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.